Re: contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

2021-07-16 Thread Andrew Sutton via Gcc-patches
> Is just using std::terminate as the handler viable? Or if we're sure > contracts in some form will go into the IS eventually, and the > signature won't change, we could just add it in __cxxabiv1:: as you > suggested earlier. No, the handler needs to be configurable (at least quietly) in order

Re: contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

2021-07-14 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 04:56, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 7/12/21 3:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 20:07, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> > >> On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: > >>> > >>> I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email > >>>

Re: contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

2021-07-13 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 7/12/21 3:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 20:07, Jason Merrill wrote: On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch against master. See

Re: contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

2021-07-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 20:07, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: > > > > I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email > > address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch > > against master. See attached. The

Re: contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

2021-07-06 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 7/5/21 3:07 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch against master. See attached. The ChangeLog.contracts files list the sum of

contracts library support (was Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts)

2021-07-05 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch against master. See attached. The ChangeLog.contracts files list the sum of changes for the patch, not the full

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-07-02 Thread Andrew Sutton via Gcc-patches
I think so, yes. On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 11:09 AM Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 7/1/21 12:27 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote: > >>> I think this version addresses most of your concerns. > >> > >> Thanks, looking good. I'll fuss with it a bit and commit it soon. > > Do you agree that this testcase should

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-07-02 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 7/1/21 12:27 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote: I think this version addresses most of your concerns. Thanks, looking good. I'll fuss with it a bit and commit it soon. Do you agree that this testcase should compile? >From 85400e1896a188892b1ebeb0c8e86ff3cd28cfa6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From:

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-07-01 Thread Andrew Sutton via Gcc-patches
> > I think this version addresses most of your concerns. > > Thanks, looking good. I'll fuss with it a bit and commit it soon. Awesome! Andrew

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-07-01 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 6/26/21 10:23 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote: Hi Jason, I ended up taking over this work from Jeff (CC'd on his existing email address). I scraped all the contracts changes into one big patch against master. See attached. The ChangeLog.contracts files list the sum of changes for the patch, not the

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-05-28 Thread Jeff Chapman via Gcc-patches
Hello again :) Wanted to shoot a quick status update. Some github issues have been created for points of feedback, and we've been working on addressing them. A few changes have been pushed to the contracts-jac-alt branch, while there's also an active more in depth rewrite branch. Some specific

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-05-17 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 5/14/21 4:54 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 4/30/21 1:44 PM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Hello! Looping back around to this. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567334.html On 3/25/21, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/1/21 8:12 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote:

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-05-14 Thread Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 04:54:10PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote: > Please add an overview of the implementation strategy to the top of > cxx-contracts.c. Particularly to discuss the why and how of > pre/post/guarded/unguarded functions. And I think let's please name the file

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-05-14 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 4/30/21 1:44 PM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Hello! Looping back around to this. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567334.html On 3/25/21, Jason Merrill wrote: On 3/1/21 8:12 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote: On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote:

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-04-30 Thread Jeff Chapman via Gcc-patches
Hello! Looping back around to this. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/567334.html On 3/25/21, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 3/1/21 8:12 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: >> On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Ping. re:

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-03-25 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 3/1/21 8:12 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote: On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Ping. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561135.html

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-03-01 Thread Jeff Chapman via Gcc-patches
On 1/18/21, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: >> Ping. re: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561135.html >> >> >> https://github.com/lock3/gcc/tree/contracts-jac-alt >>

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-01-18 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Ping. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561135.html > OK, I'll start with -alt then, thanks. Andrew is exactly correct, contracts-jac-alt is still

Re: [PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-01-05 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
On 1/4/21 9:58 AM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Ping. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561135.html > OK, I'll start with -alt then, thanks. Andrew is exactly correct, contracts-jac-alt is still

[PATCH] PING implement pre-c++20 contracts

2021-01-04 Thread Jeff Chapman via Gcc-patches
Ping. re: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561135.html > OK, I'll start with -alt then, thanks. > > Andrew is exactly correct, contracts-jac-alt is still the current branch > we're focusing our upstreaming efforts on. > > It's trailing upstream master by a fair bit at this